After summarizing all jobsite, testing and substrate conditions, this was my closing paragraph. Nothing fancy, just factual and to the point:

"Under present conditions, this installation should be considered high risk without the use of a 100% solids epoxy moisture mitigation system such as Ardex MC, Aqua Fin, Koester, or similar as recommended by XXXX for use with their floor covering products and adhesives'.

(11-21-2012, 11:50 AM)CC Solutions Wrote: I believe it is the People's Republic of Kalifornia....

Don't get started JD otherwise I will too!! That's what happens when everyone listens to A-List celebrities. Watermelons. All of 'em.

Apologies to admin for getting political...Ahem- back on topic;

The only person I know in the southern hemisphere who's bread and butter is third-party testing- shies away from giving advice. They're insured to the eyeballs but claim they'll never need it. Basically, you provide the figures and walk away. You can tell them what the figures mean but what they do with the info has to be entirely in their court.

I'd be interested to know if any independent testing party has ever been hauled over litigation.

The problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other people's money.
- Margaret Thatcher

I agree - give the results and leave. I have on occasion provided mitigation product manufacturer names as noted in my risk assessment, however, it also states "or similar as recommended by the manufacturer". Perhaps it is risky, but it puts the final approval of the system back on the floor covering manufacturer. Oddly enough, too often I encounter decision makers who don't have a clue about what type of product to install, and they're vulnerable to the claims made by sales people representing inferior products "at a better sf price". And we all know, ya get what ya pay for.

(11-19-2012, 01:58 PM)eaadams Wrote: No don't waste time marketing to subs. It has to be in the specs. That is the marketing mistake Wagner makes.

EA EA EA, there arent many times I have to disagree with you, but my question is this, "how do you eat a sandwich?" response: "one bite at a time."

You could have worked the spec'd community until you were blue in the face, but if the subs don't know or don't understand, they won't do it! Look how long CaCl testings has been spec'd? How often was it not done or not done properly? Your point on INCREASED spec's (we have quite a few already) is valid, but the timing has to be correct. Keep your eyes out for the AIA webinar coming VERY soon and don't forget the things we have done on a national stage with AIA the last couple of years! "one bite at a time."

Jason

(11-19-2012, 02:34 PM)CC Solutions Wrote: After this installer gets burned, and then sees that the testing is as easy as drilling a hole and inserting a reader, he'll be sure to use RH probes every time.

At least that is what I have noticed around here. The Rapid RH is so easy and so quick, guys that install expensive flooring are very eager to use them now.

This is a GREAT point JD and it is not just around your area. I can tell you there are LARGE GC's out there that wouldn't give me the time of day 6 years ago. I planted the seed, they got bit by a failure, and now they see the light. They do some of the testing themselves and THEY push the flooring sub to do the rest. They pay millions for liability insurance; this is a VERY cheap form of that. They either understand before the failure or after, but they usually understand!